Have you guys seen the top ten topics? Total snoozer, this place.

1988RedT2 said:

Keith Tanner said:

FYI, a fairly recent Yale study looked at indirect carbon emissions of EVs vs ICE. Turns out fossil fuels are not all sunshine and daffodils, but I don't think anyone expected that. But this study looks into the common thinking that the supply chain for EVs is much dirtier than for fossil fuels.

Link to overview (link to study is also there)

I tend to take a VERY cynical view of studies (surprise!) as they are so frequently just happy affirmations for the people that are funding the study. 

It would be interesting to see a similar study that was funded by the petroleum industry.

Like, cigarettes totally don't cause cancer.  I get it, that's legitimate skepticism. I guess you should look into who's funding Yale, I don't have any information on that. 

If you don't trust any studies, what do you trust? Just your gut? Or do you read the studies and see what the assumptions and data are?

1988RedT2 said:

Fun stuff.  Carry on.  I've got to get some work done!

This would be called "throwing gasoline on the fire and running away", but maybe it should be "shorting out the terminals on the batteries and bypassing any safety devices and running away" instead :)

Keith Tanner said:

1988RedT2 said:

Keith Tanner said:

FYI, a fairly recent Yale study looked at indirect carbon emissions of EVs vs ICE. Turns out fossil fuels are not all sunshine and daffodils, but I don't think anyone expected that. But this study looks into the common thinking that the supply chain for EVs is much dirtier than for fossil fuels.

Link to overview (link to study is also there)

I tend to take a VERY cynical view of studies (surprise!) as they are so frequently just happy affirmations for the people that are funding the study. 

It would be interesting to see a similar study that was funded by the petroleum industry.

Like, cigarettes totally don't cause cancer.  I get it. I guess you should look into who's funding Yale, I don't have any information on that. 

If you don't trust any studies, what do you trust? Just your gut? Or do you read the studies and see what the assumptions and data are?

I trust exactly the things which reinforce my preconceptions!!

See: COVID

I think at the very least your argument should be "we're approaching market saturation for the current level of battery/motor tech and charging infrastructure". You're making the assumption that the technology will never equal or surpass the convenience/capability/whatever of ICE vehicles, which we don't know to be the case. You're also assuming that the ICE landscape will never change - the more fuel prices increase, the more appealing EVs will become, for example. Yes you're right that the fanboys like to oversell how environmentally friendly EVs are, but they are still comparable to better long term versus ICE, and again that situation should only be improving as the technology develops.

1988RedT2 said:

With such interference, the obvious saturation point will approach 100%.  Without, EV's would sell according to how well they do the things people expect cars to do, at a price that is competitive with ICE-powered vehicles.  

You know Tesla has had zero government incentives for quite some time, and still had no problem selling every one of their cars they make, right?

1988RedT2 said:

Keith Tanner said:

What do you think the saturation point is for the US market and why?

We really can't discuss saturation point without discussing artifices such as government "incentives" which of course are nothing but the subsidization of EV corporations with taxpayer dollars in the name of the "public good."

With such interference, the obvious saturation point will approach 100%.  Without, EV's would sell according to how well they do the things people expect cars to do, at a price that is competitive with ICE-powered vehicles.  

How do you feel about tax dollars going to bail out GM and Chrysler, or prop up Ford so that hundreds of thousands of people didn't lose their jobs?

How do you feel about $5.9 Trillion in global gov subsidies going to oil/gas in 2020?

And how would you feel if those same corporations were making $200+ billion in profits every year while getting those subsidies?

Surely these highly profitable, mature companies in 100+ year old industries should be able to stand on their own right? If you're against any gov subsidies at all, that's at least a cogent point with me. But it doesn't seem consistent to me to turn a blind eye to the things we're used to and then get worked up about the new guy getting similar treatment to what the old guard has gotten fat off of for decades.

dculberson said:

1988RedT2 said:

With such interference, the obvious saturation point will approach 100%.  Without, EV's would sell according to how well they do the things people expect cars to do, at a price that is competitive with ICE-powered vehicles.  

You know Tesla has had zero government incentives for quite some time, and still had no problem selling every one of their cars they make, right?

Worse than that, Tesla won't be eligible for $4,500 of the proposed $12,500 tax credit because they're not unionized.

MarketWatch January 25th, 2022 

Top ten topics?

In reply to RX Reven' :

Which is only one of the reasons I love Tesla.

Trolls gonna troll. I'm not takin the bait. 

Lemme see...tax credits and rebates to the EV vehicle purchaser or tax credits and incentives to the big oil/gas power corporations? Why shouldn't we benefit from getting our used BMW i3? Got $300 back from the electric co-op towards my level 2 charge port. Which I bought from a local electric supply company and installed myself for further savings. I benefit and a local company benefits. Try that with a gas powered car? Nope all the breaks to the oil/gas companies.

This E36 M3 again, huh?

Four legs good! Two legs bad!

Ya know what aren't subsidized?

Buggy whips.

In reply to mtn :

I blame it on the February thing.